Feedback Request

The author of the book featured in Face-Lift 1321 (See previous post) would like feedback on the following revision:


Mr. Evil Editor:

When Lee Chase goes alone to interview the owner of an auto shop, she ends up almost getting killed by a gang member. She may have found where the gang stores the cars they’ve stolen, but by going alone she’s made one too many mistakes. [At this point I'm wondering if Lee is a reporter or possibly a customer who wants to compare prices on body work. Introduce her as a homicide detective, if that's what she is. Although a homicide detective would be investigating a murder, not stolen cars.] Now, close to being demoted, she’s given the unenviable job of solving a murder that has no obvious motive.

The murdered man was charged with manslaughter of a teenager, but freed on a technicality. Two years later, on the anniversary of the date he walked free, he was killed. With no obvious suspects, Lee interviews Harry Finch, the father of the slain teenager. Still angry about his son’s death, but without even a parking ticket on his record, Lee doesn’t believe he’s the murderer. [Okay, let's discuss "dangling modifiers." In the previous version, you used the sentence: A pleasant and polite man with no record, she can't believe he would commit murder. AlaskaRavenclaw asked if you knew what was wrong with the sentence. What was wrong is that when you open a sentence with a modifying clause, we expect that it modifies the subject of the main clause (which is Lee). Instead it describes Harry. You can argue that "he" can't describe Lee, as Lee is a female, but we don't want grammar rules to change depending on whether the detective is male or female and whether it's Harry the father or Harriet the mother who is the serial killer. That would be chaos at worst, and annoying to readers at best. So you might have tried: A pleasant and polite man with no record, he (or Harry) seems an unlikely murder suspect. 

Moving on to the current version: Still angry about his son’s death, but without even a parking ticket on his record, Lee . . .  Again, you've described Harry, but made Lee the subject. There are numerous ways to fix this, including: Though he's still angry about his son's death, Harry doesn't strike Lee as the murdering type. He's pleasant and polite and he's never even had a parking ticket.]

She's wrong.

Harry is a merciless killer hunting for justice. Justice for his son, justice for anyone who has been betrayed. [Was his son betrayed?] But Harry's version of justice is quickly making him the most prolific serial killer Columbus has ever seen.

Hoping she might give him important information about the case, [Which case? His own or his son's?] Harry asks Lee to coffee, [This time you have the right subject, but it's still confusing because we have two pronouns in the modifying clause. You can make it easier on us by saying Hoping Lee might give him important information about the case, Harry asks her to coffee . . .] Eventually, [Meaning by dessert or after they've been dating a few weeks?] he finds himself liking her, even seeing that he could love her, and Lee begins to love him back. [There surely are rules against dating a person of interest in the case you're working, especially if he's the only suspect you have.] 

As the bodies pile up, as a gang member takes potshots at Lee, Harry and Lee fall in love. [You just said they're falling in love in the previous sentence. Move on.] It all comes together in a final clash that forces Lee to confront not only the gang that wants her dead, but Harry, the man she loves.

JUSTICE BETRAYED is complete at 81,000 words.

Thank you for your consideration. A partial or full manuscript is available on request.

Sincerely,


Notes

Another example of possibly confusing pronouns: The murdered man was charged with manslaughter of a teenager, but freed on a technicality. Two years later, on the anniversary of the date he walked free, he was killed. As both a man and a teenager are killed in the first sentence I have to figure out which one you're talking about when you say "he" was killed in the second sentence.

It might be a good idea to go through your manuscript looking for dangling modifiers and unclear pronoun antecedents.